I heard him speaking a wee while ago and he made some serious sense. :shock:

His point was that no matter what the USA does they need to stop exporting/depleting their wealth and gifting it into the hands of the enemy. Meaning those in the ME who hate everything that the states stands for. Saudi Arabia is not their friend according to him either. Smart man.

I currently do not have time to go over his site, but I thank you for posting it so I can peruse it tomorrow.

I am for the quickest and most efficient transition possible. We have the ability to stop importing any energy or resources needed to produce energy. IMHO nuclear power with domestic oil production as a back up is the way to go. Start powering domestic transportation needs with all electric. Wind power is too inefficient and un reliable and natural gas is not an unlimited resource, oil is. Either way we must stop giving money away to islam. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, they all want to conquer the world and force all to convert to allah.

I can't say I'm that impressed, really... he glosses over or ignores a lot problems with wind energy. One of the biggest ones is that in periods of high demand (ie. when it's very cold or very hot), there's less wind. Wind is also so variable that conventional power generation has to stay on the meet demand - as far as I know, there hasn't been a single case of increased wind generation allowing the shut down of conventional plants, anywhere in the world.

His numbers for replacement seem to be based off of 100% capacity - whereas wind farms the world over average less than 20% of their potential. It also cost more to produce, and I've yet to see a single project that was not dependent on subisdies and regulations forcing companies to buy 'renewable'.

I just don't think Wind is remotely close to the answer. If you're interested, the best single source I've seen for 'anti-Wind' data is here: Link. The first thing you'll notice is that this has been tried extensively in Europe, and most governments are abandoning it as a feasible alternative.

I think I agree with your assessments, my criticism is mostly directed at the 'plan'. I don't even disagree with the premise that buying oil from our worst enemies is a bad idea :D

Nuke plants are definately part of the solution - but I would argue that watermelon activism and NIMBY is a large part of the reason they take so long to get built. I don't mean to be too critical of wind power, but I think looking at it as anything but an avenue of future research is premature for now. Same with solar, as you acknowledged (the stuff they're doing with carbon nanotubes these days is pretty amazing - we might see some advances with that).

How I see it, in brief is this: There will be no short-term solution to our energy supply problems. Alternative energy sources are very long-term solutions, and the only way to keep our economy going long enough to explore those, is the medium-term solution of removing barriers to alternative fossil-fuel exploration and development. Any responsible and realistic energy policy has to include both options.

I'm not sure where the U.S. wins on this plan. The bulk of the worlds natural gas still comes from Russia and the Middle East (hardly "secure" suppliers) No way Canada would be able to supply all their needs.

I know I'm not FF and I was afraid to ask him to interpert..... yet again.... for this country Mamma. So I goggled the Phrase and came up with this:

Suman Palit coined it over the following:

It all came to a head in Johannesburg, towards the tail end of the Earth Summit 2002. African and Asian farmers (1), led by Barun Mitra of the Sustainable Development Network, presented three environmental organizations with a “Bullshit” trophy (yes, made out of real cow dung) for their role in actually preserving poverty in Third World countries! It was a remarkable indictment of how far out of touch today’s green activists were with the developing world indigents whose lives they intend to better.

Suman traces through the standard palate of Green issues and poignantly describes how issues that merely affect Western (liberal) sensibilities -- for ex., biotech food -- actually affect *real* hunger and poverty in the 3rd world.

He coins (well, new to me at least) the term Watermelon Activism:

Green activism in India and across much of the world has unfortunately been replaced by Watermelon activism. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Dominated by a mélange of fierce anti-globalists, neo-socialists, free-market critics and Gaia evangelists, this is the new face of environmental activism. Clouded in large part by the precautionary principle (3), which is an extreme example of risk-averse behavior, they lead the neo-Luddite opposition to scientific advances in crop genetics, nanotechnology, genome research, cloning, you name it. The potential for damage to agriculture based economies of Africa and Asia is dangerously real.

If this isn't what FF meant, it still works for me. example one being the activists ignoring that Bio-Fuels are using up valuable acreage that could be feeding the poor plus it is driving up the cost of the poor's only source of food staples thus forcing more poor into hunger, using a larger percent of their meager income to feed themselves and family and lastly forcing more folks into malnutrition and a slow lingering painful death due to malnutrition. But hey.. as long as the watermelon activists can ease their guilt about that GW CO2 hysteria thingy.

Crazymamma, that's exactly the kind of thing I meant. I first heard the term from Jason Kenney, in regards to some (small) areas of Alberta where that thinking is popular. I really need to tone down the weird lingo, eh?

Crazymamma, that's exactly the kind of thing I meant. I first heard the term from Jason Kenney, in regards to some (small) areas of Alberta where that thinking is popular. I really need to tone down the weird lingo, eh?

That's an excellent term and I am going to use it from now on.

By the way did anyone see the bit on the National last night about the whales fins and how aereodynamic they are. They have decided to make the blades for turbine in a similar fashion and it improves efficiency by 20%. So now we can get 24% of our power from the wind. 8)

...In recent months, commercial shipping has been criticised for not doing enough to tackle global warming. Of all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere today, 4% comes from ships. That's more than the aviation industry, primarily because 90% of global trade is done by sea.

MS Beluga SkySails believes it has a solution. It has set sail on a mission to turn the oceans green.

Once the ship has reached the open sea, it reveals its brand new weapon in the fight against global warming: a kite.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum